Memeorandum

February 24, 2007

Stray Thought On Armitage And Woodward

Here is a stray thought I can't seem to turn into anything of GREAT IMPORT - from reading the transcript of the chat between Armitage and Woodward where Armitage mentioned Valerie Plame, it seems virtually certain that Armitage actually showed the INR memo to Woodward. Since the memo was marked as Top Secret, one wonders about the propriety here. [I am advised that Woodward has denied this via email. See UPDATE.]

From the transcript with emphasis added:

3:2 ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [ ] analyst at3:3 the agency.3:4 WOODWARD: It's still weird.3:5 ARMITAGE: It---It's perfect. This is what she3:6 does she is a WMD analyst out there.3:7 WOODWARD: Oh she is.3:8 ARMITAGE: Yeah.3:9 WOODWARD: Oh, I see.3:10 ARMITAGE: [ ] look at it.3:11 WOODWARD: Oh I see. I didn't [ ].3:12 ARMITAGE: Yeah. See?3:13 WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?3:14 ARMITAGE: No she isn't the chief, no.3:15 WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh3:16 yeah, hubby will go."3:17 ARMITAGE: Yeah, he knows Africa.

HELP WANTED: I am mentally composing a rip-roaring post titled "Fitzi's Dishonor: (Cleverly going for the movie tie-in this weekend).

The obvious outrages of this "investigation" seem to me to be:

(1) The decision to not call John Dickerson or David Gregory to test Ari Fleischer's credibility. The idea that this was out of deference to the lofty profession of journalism does not pass the laugh test, since Fitzgerald subpoenaed Pincus, Kessler, Russert, Cooper (twice) and let Judy Miller sit in jail for 85 days.

My guess - as of the summer of 2004, Ari was the *only* witness with an unambiguous story that Libby spoke about Ms. Plame prior to his Russert reminder (eventually, Judy made two). Ari had denied leaking to Pincus and Pincus had contradicted that; one or two more contradictions and Fitzgerald may have had an ethical problem presenting Ari as a witness (he would not, however, have a problem presenting Ari as part of a SNL skit).

So, better to keep those two at bay and allow some reasonable doubt then to call them and torpedo the "case" against Libby. In addition, when jockeying with Libby in pre- or post-indictment negotiations, Libby might not know how weak the case was - it was only into the discovery process that the problems with Fleischer emerged.

(2) The Judy Miller affidavit - this was the affidavit explaining the importance of compelling her testimony. The judges ruled in his favor, but their opinion (link?) clearly suggested a balancing act between a free press and a serious national security investigation. Had the judges been told the truth - Fitzgerald was targeting Libby for perjury - perhaps the ruling would have been different.

Dow Jones and the AP (?) are suing to have this affidavit released, so we may find out soon enough.

(3) The Russert shenanigans: Russert clearly filed a highly misleading affidavit resisting his subpoena, telling the judge that his cooperation would be chilling without mentioning the awkward fact that he had already talked to the FBI. And Fitzgerald played along. Odd. Of course, Fitzgerald also declined to call David Gregory, which might have undercut Russert's story about learning about Ms. Plame from Novak's columns. Yes, Mr. Gregory is in an odd spot - whatever his story, he will either discredit Russert or Fleischer (OK, let's look for Gregory to say "I was hopped up on cold medicine and sleeping pills, I don't have any useful memory of that conversation either way." Could work!)

(4) The outrageous press conference suggesting that getting Libby for perjury was adequate, since it was hard to get him on the underlying leak. Please - none of the other leakers were charged, so let's not pretend leaking was a crime.

(5) The outrageous close which stepped over the "don't speculate about her status" line in exactly the way Ted Wells had predicted he would months earlier at some hearing for which I lack a link.

I welcome other suggestions. And I had a lovely stray thought about Judy Miller, but I should have written it down...

UPDATE: Centralcal emails Bob Woodward and gets this back:

From Bob Woodward: that's a good question, but there was no document or note or anything on paper that he was referring to. I so testified under oath to Fitzgerald. Because some of the colorful words were deleted, there may also be a garble in the transcript you have.

thanks, Bob Woodward"

Hmm.

MORE: In the comments I am chided for not mentioning the non-investiagtion of State. Good point - after Armitage had confessed to leaking to Novak in July, a serious investigator might have askewd for his calendar for June (as Fitzgerald did with Libby).

Had that step been taken, the Woodward-Armitage appointment on June 13 might have been discovered, Armitage might have recalled that leak, it may have dawned on Fitzgerald that as State in June, the spousal link was not considered to be a secret and it was considered to be an answer to the question of who sent Joe Wilson.

In such an environment, a different investigator might have opened his mind to the possibility that State leaked like a sieve about Wilson's wife, and tried to pin that down.

Or, why bother - the leaks weren't a crime, and Joe had not accused State of smearing a heroic whistleblower, so why bother? In Fitz-world, the White House was Hell's Gate.

I think it is outrageous that we could indict and try anyone for perjury and obstruction without also charging them for an underlying substantive offense. Shouldn't we be working to amend the federal criminal code to remove these crimes from the U.S.C. ?

Just in case Mark O is locked-out; he sent me this email. Which indicates he thinks the jurors are working towards acquittal. Whether by route of what some perceived to see while testimony unfolded. Others? Perhaps through experiences they or their loved ones have had at the hands of the bureacracy; or police? One never knows. Until the jury comes back IN.

While Armitage? KNOWN INFORMER BEFORE FITZ WAS "ANNOINTED." Perhaps, he was schmeared with the same oil Ashcroft used on himself? Really. Jesus knows. But I don't think we do.

Nor do I think Woodward, this time, can "take down the president. He'll be lucky if he's left standing with his pants on.

While Mark O told me this. And, there was no secrecy stamp on top of my email.

Here's your cut & paste:

"There is only one question: did Libby lie. It can't take long to say yes to that. To say no, one has to check all the allegations to be certain. If the jury thought he had lied, I think there would have been a quick verdict."

I find it amazing that I get more angry about this case as it goes on, as opposed to less. There really is something very dirty going on here. I wonder if it is unprecedented dirty, or just run of the mill dirty.

TM, email if you want help w/ links..
Everything you said was right except for the "balancing test" in the Miller case--that was Tatel; the others did not go along--Still--I think it is hard to believe the court would hvae honored the subpoenas if the case had been honestly described ..We can do more on this together, if you wish..(Email iif you want a hand)

Do we know at what point in the process he was granted immunity? Do we know how his testimony changed over time?

We know that he says the Libby told him the "hush hush" bit. Libby says he didn't say anything. We also know that Fleischer saw the INR on AF1 he wasn't supposed to see.

It seems to me that it would have been useful to Ari to come up with a source other than the INR or someone at State for the information. As disclosing the info in the INR probably was a breach of protocol, and maybe the law. Therefore, Libby becomes a convenient "scapegoat", for Fleischer.

I think a lot of people are aware, when this show first went sailing out into the public, Woodward tried a "maneuver" to brake the Fitzgerald's horse in mid-trot.

He did this on Larry King Live. If memory serves me right. And, he did it by saying this thing about Libby was a "side show." And, not important. And, people should just move on. Or away.

Then everybody within the elite universe of punit-gossipers went as quiet as church mice.

Except for Andrea Mitchell. And, she attests to "being drunk."

Not exactly a way to build a "solid rock" case.

And, then Novak, being a professional, ran with the question the PRESIDENT wanted asked! Who sent the ambassador with no gravitas, TO Niger. To hunt for evidence. Which for months ... From at least May 2003 to the dates in June where Libby met with destiny ... ALL HAVE THE AMBASSADOR TRYING TO FLOG BUSH.

Well? Like Dan RaTHer, the rather innept press tried to influence voters. But they failed.

And, now? We're down to 12 DC jurors.

While what's happening in Wells office? Does he have APPEALS EXPERTS READY? And, are they planning more than one approach? Should the jyry acquit? No more work for them.

But if the jury is hung. Or finds Libby guilty of "something," then the next phase would be MOUNTING AN APPEAL.

My guess is that would happen with speed. Rather than let the leftoid press consume the airwaves with their schtick.

Also, nobody's really watching. It seems all that you're accommodating here are the people who became addicted to this story. While others? Went elsewhere. What would draw those customers back?

What options does Libby have through Wells?

By the way, if the answer ahead turns out "TO PARTY" ... that, too, takes pre-planning these days. Or else too many people show up, and there's not enough beer.

In a motion, the defense anticipated the Fitz would introduce non-rebuttal material into his "rebuttal," and if he did so, they'd request a surrebuttal. Is there any evidence that the made such a request? We know they objected to his use of the Rove's not-in-evidence GJ testimony and his bizarre suggestion that agents may have been murdered because of Libby (thinly camouflaged as state-of-mind evidence), but did they also object to his introduction of, for instance, a new motive theory?

Out of curiosity, how much lead time is a WH press secretary given before some major announcement such as the declassification of the NIE or as a heads up that certain reporters will be given the story? And is it wrong to assume that a WH press secretary would be in on any meetings at the WH where the pros and cons of declassification and/or releasing the contents to reporters would be discussed?

Carol, Walton tried to cure the Rove and murdered agents over-steps with an instruction, but I haven't seen any indication he gave a corrective instruction about Fitz going beyond the scope of rebuttal. I don't know for sure to what extent Fitz did so, though I certainly suspect he did.

I quickly reviewed the Miller decision wh in pdf form is on the Fitz website.

And , I repeat, that but for Fitz' misrepresentations to the Ct, I do not believe he would have succeeded.
Sentelle's opinion sets out the facts--the Novak article (a hint but no cite to 1x2x6) and a cite to Cooper's War on Wilson (missing the question mark on this P.O.S.). He went into a long discussion of the Branzburg cases and says: "On the record before us [n.b. which we are still not allowed to see] there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant a grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure" (p. 10 of op)

J Henderson concurred , his key point (p. 34) "we need not, and therefore should not decide anything more today than that the special counsel's evidentiary proffer oversomes any hurdle, however, high ,, a federal common law reporter's privilege may exist." (p. 34)
J. Tatel made his famous balancing test (slip op pp 20-21)

All three seem to have assumed for the purpose of this detailed discussion on the state of the law, the underlying factual proffer made by Fitz which we all know was false..see the bolded language above--an utter lie which Fitz knew to be a lie when he made it to the Court.

I have a question and you can all shoot me down.
In one of Fitzgerald's filings (recent), he mentions Valerie Plame's employment status as of Jan 1,2002.

Is it at all possible that she would have been legally covered at the time Wilson was sent to Niger, but no longer covered by the time she was mentioned in the paper.
Therefore, the problem was in discussing historically sensitive information?
Am I making any sense?

MayBee, MJW, I have explained several times that it is very bad form to object in opening and closing statements. One of Libby's lawyers did when Fitz clearly went over the line. There was a bench conference on this and the J issued his admonition. It did not go as far as I would have wished. But there is no question that the objections to the overreaches by Fitz were preserved for appeal.

MayBee:"Is it at all possible that she would have been legally covered at the time Wilson was sent to Niger, but no longer covered by the time she was mentioned in the paper.
Therefore, the problem was in discussing historically sensitive information?"

The Statute is VERY specific. If her five years since being a NOC had passed it was inapplicable and there is no other criminal statute applicable.

I listened to the tape again several times. It sounds to me like Armitage says to Woodward: "here! look at it."

Just before this segment you hear the squeek of hinges and a door shut loudly. I think TM is right, Armitage was showing him a document and closed the door first so that it wouldn't be observed and overhead.

TM, very nice collection of outrages--and that INR catch has interesting implications. Your choice of words is pretty accurately describes the situation: "one wonders about the propriety here." One does wonder, and when one wonders one concludes that it was certainly very improper. In fact, it undoubtedly violated all known administrative regulations on the handling of classified documents and should have subjected Deputy Dick to administrative sanctions--possibly all the way up to dismissal.

But...

Was it criminally improper? We know Fitz wanted to apply the Espionage Act to Libby but couldn't find a way to pull it off--the specific intent required is a bitch: "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Was Deputy Dick intending to do something "to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." No matter what you say about the guy, that I doubt.

Now, it's true that Fitz didn't have this tape when he could have, like, if he'd done a really diligent investigation. But if he couldn't find a reason to charge Deputy Dick for this one, did he honestly think he'd find something he could charge Libby or anyone else with? I mean, using the same standard that he seems to have used for Armitage?

Apparently Fitz may have had different standards for different folks, and the one for charging neocons--bad leakers--was far easier than the one that he applied to good leakers.

It did not go as far as I would have wished. But there is no question that the objections to the overreaches by Fitz were preserved for appeal.

That's good to hear. And it is impossible for us to know specifically what Libby's team objected to in the bench conference. As long as they are preserved for appeal I'm satisfied, although I would have liked Fitzgerald to get a comment like "that's suicide" from the judge.

Woodward always tapes his book interviews--If you're suggesting he wore a hidden microphone, I'm sure the answer is "no". As to whether Armitage would have shown him the INR knowing he was being taped--well, I'd guess he had every reason to believe n o one would ever hear the tape.

Maybe we ought to send a question over to Woodward asking him if our "reading" of the tape is correct.

MayBee, speaking from recollection, I don't think that's an issue. As Toensing explains, the IIPA envisions overseas postings, not temporary travel. The provisions are really quite extraordinarily precise and restrictive. It appears from press accounts that her last overseas posting terminated in 1997, just over 5 years before the Novak article. History it was, but that has no bearing for purposes of the IIPA. You can google it and read it--it's not that long.

The Statute is VERY specific. If her five years since being a NOC had passed it was inapplicable and there is no other criminal statute applicable.

I'm not actually trying to figure out how it would have applied to Libby. I'm trying to figure out if the CIA could have bent over backwards and twisted itself in knots in order to come up with a reason the IIPA could have applied when they filed their complaint.
BUT...I'm probably just making stuff up.

Did Fitz rebuke the President for not firing leakers in his rebuttal? I thought I read this in an AP article. I must be mistaken.

If not, that comment leads to a host of problems, including.

1. Improperly interjecting political bias.
2. Attempting to transfer blame from the President and other employees to Libby.
3. Suggesting that since Libby and other officials were not fired, jury must cure the problem with a conviction.
4. Suggesting that Libby is guilty of some other crime besides lying.
5. Exceeding the scope of Wells' close.

Sure, Tom..You have the most impt parts of the opinion in the post above.
I also think that the portions of the DoJ regs cited by Henderson pp. 34-35 show that only by factual misrepresentations could the effort by Fitz meet the DoJ regs on subpoenaing reporters..

Outrage?
Not interviewing the reporters who wrote the 1x2x6 tale that guided Fitzgeralds' way right up through the Miller affidavit.
It is mentioned right there in the affidavit, yet when the trial came, and the article was introduced, Fitzgerald couldn't confidently name the 1, the 2, or the 6. Shouldn't he have checked on it at some point?

TM--I think this from an earlier article contains everything on the affidavit in the Miller case you might need:

When he sought Miller's testimony, he made representations to the effect that Plame was within the reach of the IIPA (Agee Act). Here is what Judge Tatel wrote:

'As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as 'a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years'—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.) In addition, Libby said that Plame worked in the CIA's counterproliferation division' (I—53—55, 245— 46, p.80) [emphasis added]

The proof for Fitz's claim is not clear. The judge only refers to an affidavit by Fitzgerald. The only reference I can see in the affdavit that sheds a clue as to what Judge Tatel was referring to above appears at footnote 15, p. 28 of this affidavit.

"If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, USC,Sec. 793 if the information is considered information respecting the national defense. In order to establish a violation of Title 50,USCSec.421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."

If this footnote wasn't designed to create the impression that Plame was engaged in covert work disclosure of which harmed national defense, it was nevertheless artful—enough a suggestion of that to persuade Judge Tatel.

Wasn't it?

Fitzgerald made yet a second representation suggesting that Plame was covert at some point [possibly within the five year window required by the Agee Act]and that the disclosure of her name would impact negatively on national security as Judge Tatel explains on p. 80 of the now unredacted portion of the opinion:

"Most telling of all, Harlow, the CIA spokesperson, though confirming Plame's employment, asked Novak to withhold her name, stating that 'although it is very unlikely that she will ever be on another overseas mission . . . it might be embarrassing if she goes on foreign travel on her own' (II—168—69), a statement that strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point. While another case might require more specific evidence that a leak harmed national security, this showing suffices here, given the information's extremely slight news value and the lack of any serious dispute regarding Plame's employment."

The affidavit is an eye—opener in other respects, for it reveals that the investigation was, as I have always claimed, utterly one—sided, that Fitzgerald is at a minimum a gullible fool who fell hook, line and sinker for the notion that Kerry partisan and serial liar Joseph Wilson IV was a 'whistleblower' who deserved special protection by his office.

Here are a few of the gems in this affidavit by Fitzgerald, an affidavit without which Judith Miller would never have been jailed.

Paragraph 9:

'Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and [REDACTED] spoke to several reporters including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post....'

Since Kristof's first meeting was with Wilson and his wife, and because Pincus has long been believed to have known the Wilson's socially, I'd bet money that in both cases that redacted name person who shopped the tale with Wilson was none other than Valerie Plame herself.

Paragraph 94 should, however, prove the death knell for the case. That's because it establishes beyond doubt the prosecution's predisposition and the one—sided nature of this "investigation."

Here's what Fitzgerald says:

"One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the 'source' to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower'....The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the 'source' being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House."

Get it? There was not even an effort here at a fair investigation or even—handed treatment. The prosecutor was only issuing subpoenas to reporters he thought had received leaks from people trying to discredit Wilson's story. Whether or not leaks involved classified material or national security, leaks for other motives to reporters were of no concern to him. Whatever leaks Wilson or Plame or the VIPs or any other partisans made respecting the White House were of no concern to the Special Prosecutor. Just leaks relating to discrediting "whistleblower" Joe.

ok, my judy miller stray thought is back and i AM writing it down - in principle, her testimony should have provided a direct count in the indictment - on july 8 and/or june 23 libby leaked to her and did not source it to other reporters.

instead, her role in this case is just as one more person to whom libby allegedly spoke about plame during his 'i forgot' period, thereby allowing fitzgerald to go on about nine conversations with eight people.

and to be fair, in contradiction to the following stray thought, she did appear in the original indictment, but fitzgerald let her slide in court.

anyway, my stray guess - he wants as little of judy as possible. any convictions related to her evidence will be tainted by the false affidavit he submitted to get her testimony.

just a thought. that means that if libby is convicted on the 'i forgot' charges, the false affidavit creates a huge error on appeal.

and yes, 'false affidavit' may be an overstatement, but this point will surely be mentioned in an appeal. or so i say.

As Toensing explains, the IIPA envisions overseas postings, not temporary travel. The provisions are really quite extraordinarily precise and restrictive. It appears from press accounts that her last overseas posting terminated in 1997, just over 5 years before the Novak article.

Victoria Toensing: Well, if I had evidence that she was covert I certainly would respect that, but she did not have a foreign assignment within five years of publication. Wilson stated that in his book -- he states that they returned to the United States sometime in 1997, so six years. The definition of "covert agent," a person whose identity is to be protected, is someone who has been overseas in the past five years. The five years were added to protect sources the person would have worked with.

Again, to all-divine elucidation! Just curious, did
anyone ever ask if Val was covert, or not, why did
CIA not send her with husband? Was it that CIA was
intentionally trying to hide the connection? Or they , from the beginning, knew the trip would be
used for wider purposes?

That also explains why Armitage would not want to remember his interview with Woodward when he first fessed up to Fitz! And if there was ever anyone he figured he could count on not to spill the beans, it would be Woodward, wouldn't it?

Jeez, like everything else Armitage is the spitting image of the man Fitz claims to be prosecuting in Libby.

I listened to the tape again several times. It sounds to me like Armitage says to Woodward: "here! look at it."

I didn't get that at all. Sounds to me like he closes the door because a jet goes over, and the "look at it" is a repeat of the suggestion Joe's a low-level guy sent out to "look at it" meaning the yellowcake contention. And the "see" bit is responding to Woodward's repeated "I see"s. Also don't hear any paper sliding around (though that might not be audible) . . . but seems to me the default is that it didn't happen.

"Most telling of all, Harlow, the CIA spokesperson, though confirming Plame's employment, asked Novak to withhold her name, stating that 'although it is very unlikely that she will ever be on another overseas mission . . . it might be embarrassing if she goes on foreign travel on her own' (II—168—69), a statement that strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point

What a gigantic leap- it implies no such thing. I have journalist friends that have difficulty going overseas (to places like China) simply because foreign governments often don't like curious people wandering about their country. I imagine any known employee of the CIA, covert or otherwise, is going to have similar difficulties in many countries.

WOODWARD is the key to understanding Armitage. Who thought what he "showed" Woodward was in SECRET. In other words, handling "that snake," you had WOODWARD, trying to shove the Fitzgerald Libby indictment, OFF COURSE. But ARMITAGE HELD FIRM! He told Woodward in June of 2003, IN SECRET. And, he kept demanding Woodward abide by that secret!

Then? It's hard to say what Armitage has done, here. Ditto, for Colin Powell. And, George Tenet. WHo almost released his book on time: FEbruary 6th. But "publication has been held up."

Since Mark O says the longer it takes this jury to "decide," the more likely they are heading for an acquittal. How so? Mark O said that if this jury found LIBBY TO BE LYING, it would have been a slam dunk decision.

While, I'm sure Wells attorneys are deep at work for all sorts of contingencies.

In other words? As soon as the jury shows it's hand. (And, those two notes don't quite cut the mustard), we may discover questions going to the judge? What could they address? Why not the "meaning of reasonable doubt?" How many jurors are working from a theme that there is no reasonable doubt where Libby is concerned?

And, how many attorneys in Wells' office are working off of possibilities that this needs to be kicked UP in APPEAL.

It turns out, (again, from SUPREME CONFLICT), that the DC FEDERAL APPEALS BENCH has seen real talent. Once Ruth Bader Gingsberg AND Scalia wore robes from the DC CIRCUIT. It's not the 9th "circus." And, even the 9th has Alex Kazinski.)

So even while we wait, so, too, do robed folk. At the DC CIRCUIT OF APPEALS. At least their clerks await "the next round." Sould this jury "convict on something." Or hang.

Let alone, waltoon, who so far has not digested a single V-8 moment. You think he he has on his plate are the differing choices of putting Libby in jail? There must be other stuff out there that even a clown like waltoon can contemplate, no?

As you unpeel this thing, you get to recognize that Wilson was his own "leaker." And, it started early. As Wilson was on board Kerry's NOMINATION TRAIN.

If you remember, BURKETT wouldn't give up his "papers" to Mary Mapes, unless he also got a call from the Kerry Kamp.

Perhaps, the jurors will solve this? If they doubt the "BIG THREE: RUSSERT, COOPER and ANDREA Mitchell."

And, if they toss all the 3 who "gave testimony against Libby?" What can they use? Fitzgerald did, in his reBUTTal accuse the White House of LYING, for not firing ROVE.

I've reread the affidavit..interesting--perhaps someone--MJW?_want to look at the redacted portion dealing w/ who Wilson was with when he talked to Kristof and Pincus. I had assumed from what we knew about the Kristof meeting that it was Plame when I wrote that article, but there seem to be way too many spaces. Since Pincus only testified to Fleischer who was the other person?

Well, if I had evidence that she was covert I certainly would respect that, but she did not have a foreign assignment within five years of publication. Wilson stated that in his book -- he states that they returned to the United States sometime in 1997, so six years.

I understand this- and just to explain my point (and not to imply it was a good one)-
In 2002, when Val sent Joe, it was 5 years from 1997. Perhaps reporting in 2003 about what was still secret in 2002 *could* have led the CIA to say her 2002 position was classified and should not have been reported, even in 2003.

It was just something that popped into my head, which has been stewing in hot springs and snowflakes all weekend.

IF "plame" goes on travel? But she didn't shut her husband up, ya know.

Seems so odd that the punditry class is hunkered down. (Almost like they had accused Nixon of doing in the past. As a matter of fact.)

And, the Internet? Well, let's see when this is over how much traffic the Fire Dog Lake people get.

Huff-Po, by the way, started off GREAT. She stole Breitbart from Drudge. Yet, guess what? Drudge is supporting Breitbart, these days, by "buying" his breaking news. And, that's money in the bank.

While Madame du Greenspan has gotten her husband's Invisible Hand to work wonders. (Except that Mark O says that's "stupid." Because? Unlike lawyers working for NBC, who have "privilege" ... among the best privileges in the world, to be exact. Anything Greenspan did wouldn't be so protected.

The only protection Alan Greenspan actually has comes from fear. Like the Mafia enjoys.

What we don't know yet? How leaky is Fitz' case? What spills out when stories get told? And, how good is it for Andrea Mitchell, to be known as a ditz and a drunk?

By the way? Broder's chair? You wanna make a bet that Russert doesn't get it, ahead?

Sometimes, ambitions get the better of men who should know better.

You'd be surprised the clues that appear. For instance? Luttig tried to derail Wilkinson. Did too! And, Bush shoved both men off his "short list." Without saying a word.

You mean you didn't know? Before Aschcroft took his job as AG for Bush, he went thru a religious ceremony, where he did, in fact, schear oil on his body. When I read it, I wasn't surprised. He's very religious. And, in some religions "the oil schmear" comes with the territory of faith.

TM--this is also interesting. In the affidavit which is full of smoke and mirrors stuff about Plame..para 3 reads:
"Miller has been subpoenaed because her testimony is essential to determining whether or not [Libby] has committed crimes involving the improper disclosure of national defense and perjury...."

That would certainly underscore how right azaghal is that Fitz and Comey used the IIPA as a pretext to get after the declassification of the NIE and to launch a broad ranging investigation, fishing for any security violations or process crimes.Plame was just a front for this.

TM--It was that proceeding, however, that caused Cooper to talk and got Russert to go thru those hoops to avoid revealing he'd talked to the FBI.

In fact, I don't think you can separate out Judy from all the reporters who cooperated..they did because of the push for their testimony begun by Fitz in the Hogan Ct and carried on to the Ct of Appeals.

There isn't a classified facility in the country that can stand up to real scrutiny in its operations, the WH and OVP no exception. If it isn't the principals screwing up, it's the staff. Judges should have better sense that to sic FBI and prosecutors on them with little basis.

'As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation.the special counsel refers to Plame as 'a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years'—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.) In addition, Libby said that Plame worked in the CIA's counterproliferation division' (I—53—55, 245— 46, p.80) [emphasis added]

Hard to believe how naive this judge was--or that he had actually read the IIPA or its legislative history. He seems to have based his understanding of the IIPA on impressions gleaned from reading cheap spy thrillers. For example, he seems to equate counterproliferation work as somehow "covert" of its very nature. He credulously appears to equate "some unusual capacity" with "covert" for purposes of the IIPA, and is willing to rule even though the government omitted to provide him with "specific" information. Did he think that if Fitz gave him any details at all Fitz would then have to kill him?

In a way I can't really blame the judge for accepting Fitz' word that Plame was "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years" since he adds an admonitory phrase: "representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support." That trust was clearly misplaced, as Fitz played fast and loose with his language.

What were those "specific efforts"? We all know she commuted to work at Langley and was well known as CIA from attending counterproliferation conferences. Does anyone supposed that when she arrived at the Langley gates in the morning that she wasn't required to carry some ID to gain entrance? How covert would that be? Just as telling, Fitz rewords the IIPA, avoiding its actual language, by saying that Plame "had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years." The IIPA's actual language reads: "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

The idea of "serving" carries with it, as Toensing has pointed out, the idea of an assignment or posting overseas--not temporary travel on duty during which the traveler might not wear a CIA identity badge. But Fitz' rewording--"had carried out covert work overseas"--just might allow for that reading. And he could always plead ignorance if challenged on the details of his representations.

Let me guess. BUSH also owns the BIG GUN. he can declassify the whole megilla. Throw all the information out in the open. So people can see what was going on. DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE.

It would fit right in with Hugh Hewitt's 2004 BOOK: TURNOUT HAS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH THE DONKS AND THEIR LAWYERS CAN'T STEAL THE ELECTION.

Yes. In 2004. There are still traces of memory left.

ONE: THE NUTWORKS REFUSED TO CALL IT FOR BUSH!

Instead, at 10:00 PM (by my clock), DRUDGE CALLED IT! He called OHIO. He called NEW MEXICO. He called it for BUSH. And, said Kerry lost.

While the shills at C-BS were claiming non-existent numbers. In "if only" scenarios.

I kept channel switching. Kerry went to bed. REFUSING WHITE HOUSE CALLS TO "CONNECT WITH BUSH" TO CONCEDE. Bush told his dad at 3:00 am to "just turn in and go to sleep."

I think Andy Card went to the "Reagan Center(?), where there were a lot of GOP campaign workers. He told them the president probably had the election in the bag. But Kerry wouldn't conceed.

Anyway, the courtesies were gone.

And, 1:00 am (pacific time), I had switched to carville/bagala. When Carville THREW IN THE TOWEL. And, Bagala's eyes bugged out of his head.

That was election night 2004. Was there icing on the cake? YES. Bush also had coattails. And, the Republicans did well in the HOUSE and SENATE.

But we're at war, here. It is an UNcivil war, full of hatred for out military. And, what do the donks hope to gain? They want to stop kids from volunteering! They are looking to break more than just the back of this president! Let me tell ya.

But they're doing it in ways that burn bridges.

And, Hugh Hewitt was right in 2004. And, he is still RIGHT TODAY! Americans have to learn to trust the GOP enough, to VOTE IN CANDIDATES, even if they're less than thrilled with them. Because you cannot trust the democrats at the levers of the Federal Government.

Even with few people watching the Libby trial, I think that Bush is doing better than you think. His numbers keep going up. And, many Americans are expresssing themselves that they want our military to WIN.

While on the left? They eat their own. And, Hillary can't win. It's fake news ALL THE TIME. And, it should have stopped earning the likes of carville and bagala any money. But what can you do? Those are the pundits.

VAUDEVILLE DIED. Not because the acts didn't have talent. But the theaters were empty. Wanna know a secret? Movie theaters, today, with the fanciest stadium seating, can't fill up with audiences.

Is this the side of divide? You think so? I think its just the side of lousy business practices; that leads to fewer customers.

While the jury stays locked inside a room, unable to figure out how to find Libby guilty, or not guilty. (And, I'm waiting to see them write a few questions down, which they send out of the room. Hopefully, not asking for more ham sandwiches.)

I SAW JMH--If you reread everything that happened in light of azaghal's theory , stuff you passed over a hundred times takes on new meaning and lots of mysteries are resolved.

If you read that Miller opinion you certainly can believe the judges were so hot to opine on the law they were completely flummoxed and bought hook line and sinker a totally disingenuous factual representation.
Compare para 3 with all the other Cia, covert, IIPA , crap in the filing..

re: the NIE brainstorm azaghal had.
Isn't it interesting that it was a misunderstanding about the NIE that Fitzgerald mis-stated in his filings and then let fester for a few news cycles? It was quite damaging to Cheney, IIRC, and I do believe now it was purposeful punishment.

Yes, MayBee--and don't forget there was a provision in Miller's subpoena not in any others--about uranium in Iraq. I believe it was to protect those sources of her information that she sat in jail.

This was a CIA effort to punish the OVP for declassifying the parts of the NIE dealing w/ uranium in Africa.
Why, I don't know, but of that I am certain.

(Among the theories--Rocco's--to hide the fact that Wilson's original report was false; Macmind's that there was a rgoue CIA uranium operation in Niger; other's that Wilson and perhaps others were in on a deal w. Cogema to secretly sell uranium in Niger to Iraq and others.

Thanks, JM Hanes. Looks like Fitz and I are pretty much on the same page re the Espionage Act. Did you notice the cute way he says intentionally but neglects to mention the specific intent "that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation"? Our boy is clever, clever, clever.

FITZGERALD: OK. I think you have three questions there. I'm trying to remember them in order. I'll go backwards.

And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act. That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply. I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.

Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime. There may be an Official Secrets Act in England. There are some narrow statutes, and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it. So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act. I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

Yeah - thanks H & R. I went to the Washington Post site and got the correct address and it went through. Of course, I don't expect a response, but I did it anyway. Plus I am 3 hours behind you guys on the East Coast (especially, Mr. Woodward), so I don't expect him to be reading my email tonight.

Very funny Clarice, about calling Russert. Russert is a skunk. Woodward at least did the right thing in coming forward and going public the way he did. I can respect that. Not so, Russert or the rest of the NBC cres.

But Angleton achieved much. He helped buy democracy for Italy and Greece after the war; he understood the true evil of Stalin's regime; he was involved in procuring the top-secret, earth-shaking text of Khrushchev's speech in which Stalin was denounced; he was a one-man praetorian guard for what he perceived were the traditional values of the West.

I understand this- and just to explain my point (and not to imply it was a good one)-
In 2002, when Val sent Joe, it was 5 years from 1997. Perhaps reporting in 2003 about what was still secret in 2002 *could* have led the CIA to say her 2002 position was classified and should not have been reported, even in 2003.

and, from paragraph 94 of the Miller affidavit we have:

"One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the 'source' to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower'....The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the 'source' being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House."

But it was so easy to see the distinction between Libby and Armitage in fitz' eyes that we missed the bit about Wilson himself. I bet the CIA didn't, though. And WILSON himself may be mentioned somewhere in that referral.

For 39-cents, Centralcal, you can address the letter to Woodward, who is managing editor of the WaPo, at the paper's address. And, it will be delivered to his office. Does that mean only his secretary sees it? Why?

You have the potential of being a PAYING CUSTOMER. You could buy his book. Unless he could care less that you spend money for a stamp, to call his attention to your point of view.

Email addresses are the worst way in the world to get beyond the barrier of millions of pixels.

The only reason for "drat" is that it is slower.

By the way, WOODWARD KNOWS HE HAS PROBLEMS. (While pinch is way too stupid to understand the finer points of what's at stake, here.)

WOODWARD knows for instance, that LIBBY is being railroaded. That ARMITAGE started to go after this PRESIDENT. (And, Woodward didn't want to do to this president, what he gladly did to Nixon.) Different men. Different outcomes.

ARMITAGE is a tool of Colin Powell. And, somehow the CIA got it's short hairs caught in Plame's "pussy-footing" ideas. They didn't work to put Kerry anywhere near the OVal Office.

ANd, since 2004, there's been bad exposure, that a few butts have been trying to hide from.

Fitzgerald? He's not thought well of by Tenet, Powell, or Woodward! This whole mess?

It's more like an undercover operation has that gone awry.

Judith Miller? Chalabi's "voice" to the front page of the NY Times. Yes, part of the WMD stuff. But no longer a working tool. And, yet, a very epensive bill keeps coming in every month to the NY Times, from Bennett's office. Want me to guess? Millions of dollars worth of service.

While there are real American Marines whose lives are on the line. And, ditto, too, innocent Iraqi lives. While religious nutters; and British turncoats. And, all sorts of bad blood ... not just between the HOUSE OF SAUD, and IRAN. But you'd be surprised ... what's really going on ... now.

Fitz is just a side show. I'd bet if Armitage could have a "re-write?" He wouldn't have been going after Bush to see him not re-elected. Probably, had no control of the selection of Kerry; once Wesley Clark got so uncerimoniously DUMPED.

Iraq? They've got shite/sunni problems. But we've got problems between commie's and religous nutters, carrying about the same intensity.

And, Bush? He just keeps clearing up the brush. The really bad stuff that oozes out of state and the CIA.

While the pundits of the press LIE. And, they've been lying; trying to pin this on Bush.

Who started the events? State. And, the CIA. ANd, Plame, and her husband. With a good dose of french hospitality thrown in.

By the way PRODI in Italy's government FELL. Chirac's is almost over. And, BLAIR? Another piece of baloney.

This UNCIVIL WAR is more like an academic fight, than one that has a real front. That's why it's so stupid!

People aren't invested. BECAUSE IT IS ALL SO STUPID. And, walton hasn't got a brain. Just an attitude.

Since nobody knows what this jury will do; I'll guess that Wells is prepared for all sorts of contingencies.

While in Iraq? IRAQ THE MODEL is worth reading. Bush has more hopeful signs on his plate, than not.

While if Fitz doesn't get in trouble for what he's done? It just means the "people in charge" come from the clintoon's camp. Where Sandy Berg(l)er seems to have gotten away with stuff. While the Captains Quarters said there's a house cleaning going on now, at Justice. So who knows? (When ya have ta wait, ya have ta wait. For Godot. And, Santa Claus.)

About Plame's potential overseas travel: I don't kinow what CIA's rules are now, but when I was NOC'ed I had very strict limits on where I could travel, under what circumstances, and time limits in which I had to notify people ahead of travel.

I'm a little frustrated that I can't find the right post up above, but someone was discussing the selectivity that Fitz exercised with regard to interviewing reporters. The appearance was that they were trying to find Libby leaking classified information. Here's an idea to explain that, since it would seem to fly in the face of Fitz' presser statements that acknowledge that "there's no law that's [sic]specifically just says, If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."

Perhaps this falls in line with the theory many have advanced that this indictment was a high stakes bluff--that Fitz was really hoping, not to go to trial, but to get a plea deal that would keep him going against those higher than Libby. You'll notice in his presser statements he claims he's not one of those who thinks that the Espionage Act should never be used to prosecute the mere release of classified information--he says there's some flexibity in that law. But... Not enough flexibility that he would try to use it against a guy who was a top flight lawyer himself and might well hire even better lawyers.

clarice, am I wrong? Have other prosecutors used this "flexible" approach to the Espionage Act to try to buffalo people into pleas?

Carol: thank you for the suggestion to use snail mail! However, I have been surprised recently how many reporters will respond to a polite inquiry via email. I have, so far, gotten a response to every one that I have sent. Of course, I have never asked a question, quite like the question I asked tonite. So maybe I will receive NADA. At least, I tried.